Editorial: Power games via cocoa powder
Letting everyone have their say is the core idea behind democracy. But joint Editor-in-Chief Judith Hochstrasser points out that this, too, can be exploited by some to gain an advantage.
Even in grassroots democratic communities, equality is under constant threat. Such as when someone owns more stuff and thus holds an advantage. Or simply because someone can argue their case better. | Illustration: Simon Landrein
Before I began studying history at university, I worked in a cooperative café. Every decision was made by the staff on a collective basis. It was an exciting time, full of ideals. The marathon meetings also remain unforgettable when we’d debate every decision about the business, whether big or small. On one occasion, the topic at hand was the correct way to mix cocoa powder with milk to make a cold chocolate drink. There were two camps: the one wanted to dissolve the cocoa powder in a little hot water until the mixture was a smooth paste, after which it would be mixed with cold milk. The other camp, however, wanted to mix the powder and cold milk directly. People had their different arguments. Some claimed their way tasted much better and had the perfect consistency. Others claimed their way was quicker when under pressure. Matters such as these are surely worthy of limited discussion. So it was frustrating when the two opposing camps insisted on debating their topic for a full two hours.
Of course, none of this was really about how to mix cocoa powder with milk. The two most passionately argumentative colleagues had been vying with each other for months for informal dominance within the overall group. Such grassroots wrangling is a prime example both of what defines the democratic process, and of what can destroy it. Letting everyone have their say lies at the very heart of democracy, according to the political philosopher Francis Cheneval in our interview with him in this issue. But it’s precisely this opportunity that can be abused by those able and willing to manoeuvre themselves into the right position to do so. Often, they will belittle their opponents and employ emotional slogans up to the point of complete polarisation. Anyone with differing views is then seen solely as the enemy – a group no longer deemed to belong to the ‘demos’, the decision-making ‘populace’ specified in the very word ‘democracy’.
These are unfortunate excesses. Fortunately, democracies don’t have to operate like that, and instead tend to function rather like the humanities, with arguments and counterarguments examined and debated. Sometimes a consensus emerges. But it lasts only until someone puts forward a better argument, and everything has to be renegotiated. This is how knowledge remains always in flux. Just like democracy. Anyone who values academic engagement will by necessity remain open to renewed debate whenever new information emerges. That goes for the democratic process too. And they’ll also resist any and all attempts to use that debate to wrest power for themselves!
